User:KatyTravers/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Harley Quinn(TV Series)

 * Article title Harley Quinn (TV series)
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the first sentence tells the article's topic.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It doesn't include information not presented in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant but some of the areas are bare like the LGBT representation section and music.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content isn't up to date on the release date of Season 3 was announced to be premiered on HBOMAX in August
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Missing the LGBT and the music.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it has gaps in the bottom of the page, more information keeps coming out about season 3 as well as the reviews detailing Harley and Ivy's relationship also it doesn't even mention how it was in the comics which Wikipedia articles do.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes neutral point of view
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is not heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The LGBT is underrepresented and the music section.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No they're not described.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Does not persuade the reader.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes the sources back up the article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they reflect the article well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No the sources are when the series came out years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No mostly they're online reviews and articles from different sites.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes there is better sources available now.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links work!

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Well written and is clear and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could catch.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes but only one not a lot of images in the character section.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Nope just simply.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The discussions rage from useful by correcting the voice actor but also it can be just questions about when the DVD is available.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Wikiproject Television, Comics/DC comics, and Animation/american/television/ warner bros.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk page is less professional than the talk pages discussed in class.
 * The talk page is less professional than the talk pages discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * S-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strength is strong in explanation of the series itself.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Lacks detail such as representation and music.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's very well done but there's old information and there is missing parts.
 * Sources
 * Zuckerman, Esther. “Everything We Know About 'Harley Quinn' Season 3.” Thrillist, www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/harley-quinn-season-3-release-date-hbo-max-series.
 * Zuckerman, Esther. “Everything We Know About 'Harley Quinn' Season 3.” Thrillist, www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/harley-quinn-season-3-release-date-hbo-max-series.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It's clear and it describes the article's topic
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it has brief description of the article's sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No does not include information not present.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise not overly detailed.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Up to date and relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There's missing information on the soundtrack and there isn't a table on the awards.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does deal npt with equity gap.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes written from a neutral point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No not heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The soundtrack and awards are underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No minority viewpoints described.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion toward the reader.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No there is no backed up source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No they are just basic information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No sources are old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No written by one type of author.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes there are currently
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * A lot links do not work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some grammar issues.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Not well organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image which is the poster is fine for the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are half related to the topic and the others are commenting how Elvira should have her own page. (I agree)
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Wikiprojects Horror and film
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's similar to the talk pages in class but there is also some valid points about getting another page just for Elvira.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * S Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Clear and readable.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Could be better organized.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is not complete it needs work and more work to bring it up to standards of regular movies.


 * Sources
 * Garvey, Marianne. “Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark, Looks Ageless in New Halloween Video.” CNN, Cable News Network, 14 Oct. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/entertainment/elvia-halloween-trnd/index.html.

Lore Olympus
Content Surprisingly, there isn't that much content there is a basic plotline and character list. It's pretty bare since there is a lot to talk about such as the upcoming adaptation. There's a lot that could be added plotline wise as well as the character list and the upcoming events to the series such as the merch line from Hot Topic. Tone and Balance There is a neutral point of view but not scholarly the vocabulary doesn't always match. Some areas are better than others there is not a lot of balance it switches tone. Some areas are better written than others. Sources and References The article does not have referencing and citations met and it doesn't have supporting materials. This article is of Mid-importance. This is supported by the Webcomics work group which means that eventually it will be a higher a higher article in the future due to the masses willing to update it. Organization and writing quality The organization is similar to other Wikipedia articles but the writing quality differs depending on the area. The lead section is great but the characters section is lacking. Images and Media There is one photo in this article but could be very full with images of at least the main characters since Persephone and Hades have been iconic in their looks since the rise of this comic's popularity. Talk Page Discussion The talk page is moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group and it has reviews of the page as well as asking for more help on the article. It's a bit more informal than the ones discussed in class. Overall Impressions. The page obviously is made by real fans of the series but it's either they are inexperienced to writing Wikipedia articles or they're younger writers because the lack of depth that I'm used to on normal Wikipedia articles isn't there. It needs more depth with more writers and more detail but also more sources. I'm not sure if that's because they isn't any because web comics are a new form of reading. In that case it's not the Web Comics Work Group but also I can understand how thin they must be spread there are thousands of comics and they just need more people in order to make this article move up in class. Freeman, Molly. “Greek Myth-Based Lore Olympus Webtoon Becoming YA Animated Series.” ScreenRant, 10 Oct. 2019, screenrant.com/lore-olympus-animated-series-jim-henson-company/.
 * Lead Section: The lead section is great it goes over the summary and the awards that the series has won. It's very neutral and it doesn't have bias toward Lore Olympus.
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources